Imagine that you pick your seven-year-old child up from school. He is
crying and wearing a different outfit than the one he wore to school. This
is naturally upsetting but not as upsetting as your next discovery. His
shirt, one you have never seen before, has a large "L" written on the sleeve
in permanent marker; his shorts, also not his, are too large, stained and
faded. Upon questioning your child, you discover that, despite your best
efforts at compliance, your childís clothing has violated the schoolís
uniform policy. Neither you nor your husband was called to bring your child
a "compliant" change of clothing; rather a loaner uniform was forced upon
your child. He was made to change into these alien clothes (McBride "Student"
1-2).

The debate over mandatory uniforms in the public school system is raging
across the country and in our own backyards. Proponents claim uniforms
improve many areas in the educational arena while opponents vigorously
challenge these claims. Opponents also cite potential civil rights violations
while uniform supporters counter that the potential benefits greatly outweigh
any loss of freedoms. The issue of mandatory uniforms in the public schools
gained the spotlight of national attention following President Clintonís
1996 State of the Union address. During that speech the President stated,
"If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer
jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students
to wear uniforms" (Clinton 4). The President later visited Long Beach,
California, where the first, district wide, mandatory school uniform policy
in the country was enjoying seemingly remarkable success. He told those
attending his speech that he had signed an order instructing the Secretary
of Education to send to all school districts across the nation the newly
generated Manual on School Uniforms ("Clinton" 1). The manual outlines
specific steps for school districts wishing to implement uniform policies.
It also gives examples of a few model policies from across the nation (United
1-7). The President went on to thank and praise Long Beach for their glowingly
successful uniform policy ("Clinton" 3). Thus, the Long Beach Unified School
Districtís uniform policy became the national standard for school districts
across the country.

Despite the apparent success of some uniform policies, these often highly
restrictive codes are not without problems. First, the highly favorable
anecdotal reports coming from some school districts with uniform policies
contrast sharply with the emerging empirical studies on the efficacy of
uniforms. The recent data does not support the claims made by uniform proponents.
Also, if provision is not made to permit parents to opt out (exempt their
children from these policies), the codes are vulnerable to legal challenge
(United 3). Sadly, some districts in an attempt to have a successful uniform
code are overzealous in their enforcement techniques, causing confusion
and stress for school staff and parents and often humiliation for students.
While requiring public school students to wear uniforms may sound like
an attractive quick fix to some, actual implementation of these highly
restrictive policies is often rife with difficulties.

Proponents of mandatory school uniforms claim that data and evidence
support their assertions that uniforms improve discipline and reduce crime.
While the positive reports emerging from some school districts with uniform
policies seem to lend credence to this position, upon closer examination,
flaws begin to appear. In Long Beach, California, the first district to
have a widespread mandatory uniform policy in the public schools, the initial
reports concerning drops in crime and discipline were astonishing. Assault
dropped by sixty-seven percent, vandalism by eighty-two percent, and robbery
by thirty-five percent. Overall crime was reduced by seventy-three percent
the first year the policy was in place ("K-8" 1). Unfortunately, these
radical improvements were, at times, attributed exclusively to the new,
mandatory uniform policy. During a telephone interview in April 1996, Dick
Van Der Laan, Long Beach Unified School District spokesman, stated that
the only change which had occurred in the district, prior to the improved
discipline results, was the implementation of the uniform policy. However,
in the study conducted by Drs. David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore
of the University of Notre Dame, a closer look at the Long Beach case revealed
that several other reforms were put in place at the same time or shortly
prior to the implementation of the uniform policy. So, while uniforms were
the most visible change, the improvements were more likely attributable
to the other programs which included, among other initiatives, a $1 million
grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for the improvement of teaching
methods (Brunsma and Rockquemore 16). Concerning the tendency of Long Beach
sources to give credit for the improvements exclusively to uniforms, the
study states, "It seems curious given these substantive reform efforts,
administrators continue to insist that uniforms are the sole factor causing
a variety of positive educational outcome" (16). In response to such scrutiny,
Van Der Laan now states that while the district believes uniforms were
a contributing factor to the improved discipline rates, they were not the
only cause (United 4). The University of Notre Dame study also belies the
claims that uniforms improve discipline: "Our findings indicate that student
uniforms have no direct effect on . . . behavioral problems" (Brunsma and
Rockquemore 1). So, despite the claims that the improving disciplinary
numbers being issued by Long Beach, California, are attributable to uniforms,
the data seems to contradict those assertions.

Another example of a districtís policy failing to produce the results
often touted by uniform supporters is the Miami-Dade County, Florida policy.
In an effort to obtain the dramatically positive discipline results reported
by Long Beach, Miami-Dade County implemented a similar policy in many of
their elementary and middle schools beginning in the 1996-97 school year.
The results were, at best, disappointing and, at worst, alarming. The elementary
schools with mandatory uniforms saw a slight decrease in discipline problems.
Unfortunately, the high hopes held by the district for immediate, significant
improvement in discipline were not realized. Sabrina Walters, a reporter
for the Miami Herald writes, "The drastic decline uniform supporters
had envisioned did not occur" (1). Alarmingly, in middle schools, where
uniforms were mandatory, fights nearly doubled over a four-year period
from 186 in 1996-97 to 284 in 1997-98. The district administrators attempted
to explain away this startling fact by pointing out that fights increased
at nonuniform schools as well from 152 to 201 over the same period (1).
The conclusion of the Miami-Dade Study states,

This study has not proven the unequivocal effectiveness of mandatory
uniforms. If school uniforms promoted educative behavior, as powerfully
as conjectured, the incidents of safety infractions should have declined
dramatically subsequent to the establishment of uniform policies at elementary
schools in Miami-Dade County. However, as indicated the changes in frequency
of these infractions were independent of which dress code was operative
at a school. (Miami-Dade 4-5)
The summary further states that while some safety violations declined at
mandatory uniform schools, the same problems were reduced at nonuniform
schools as well (1). Empirical data does not support the anecdotal accounts
of discipline and safety improvements cited by uniform proponents.

Improved academic achievement is an additional benefit frequently attributed
to mandatory uniform policies. Consistently, however, data from true scientific
study seems to contradict this claim. In the study performed by Drs. Brunsma
and Rockquemore, test scores at schools having mandatory uniforms actually
dropped (1). The school district in Long Beach, California, continues to
produce test scores significantly below the state average despite years
of mandatory uniforms ("STAR California" and "STAR Long"). Despite claims
set forth by proponents that uniforms improve academic performance, there
is no empirical data to lend validation to these claims.

Supporters further claim that uniforms improve attendance. According
to proponents of these policies, uniforms improve school attitude and spirit
which brings about a net decrease in truancy and absenteeism. In Long Beach,
California, attendance has slowly improved in elementary and middle schools
since their mandatory uniform policy has been in effect. Attendance has
also improved at the high schools where no uniforms are required, at a
more statistically significant rate ("In Schools" 2). This would seem to
indicate an overall trend rather than uniform-induced improvement. Further
study of these statistics indicates that the trend of improved attendance
has been ongoing since 1990 (2). In Polk County, Florida, where the most
restrictive, district wide uniform policy in the nation was set in place
in 1999, the opposite of Long Beach attendance results is emerging. In
the 1998-99 school year there were 506 truancy cases investigated in Polk
County. By January 2000, the district was on track to break that record
for the 1999-2000 school year (McBride "Schools" 1). The truancy rate is
so bad that in an effort to curtail it, the Superintendent of Schools is
seeking to criminally prosecute the worst offenders, including a seven-year-old
boy (Shah 1). The effect of truancy and absenteeism was also addressed
in the University of Notre Dame study. No direct causation was shown (Brunsma
and Rockquemore 1). There is no scientific data which shows that uniforms
have a positive impact on attendance. In fact, it is possible that in some
cases, absenteeism and truancy may increase under these policies.

Among the many components needed to make a uniform policy a success
is a clause, known as an opt out, which provides parents with an avenue
to remove their children from the policy. The most successful policies
in the nation, including the one in Long Beach, California, permit parents
to exempt their children from uniforms for any reason. In Long Beach the
procedure for obtaining an opt out is simple. Parents seeking an exemption
must request, either by mail or in person, an exemption form. They must
fill it out and meet with an administrator who will discuss their objections
and verify the information contained in their form to prevent fraudulent
exemptions ("Guidelines" 4). Loren Siegel, director of public education
for the American Civil Liberties union, cautions schools against omitting
an opt out provision from uniform policies:

For a public school uniform policy to be legal, it has to have an
opt out provision. Every child in this country has the right to a public
school education, and that right cannot be conditioned upon compliance
with a uniform policy. Some parents and children will have religious objections
to uniforms. Others wonít want to participate for aesthetic reasons. (1)
Even the Manual on School Uniforms, published and distributed by
the United States Department of Education, says this about opt out provisions:
"A mandatory school uniform policy without an opt out provision could be
vulnerable to legal challenge" (3). The most restrictive policy in the
nation is here, in Polk County. Beginning in the 1999-2000 school year
the opt out provision was removed from the districtís uniform policy. This
was done in response to the ever-increasing numbers of parents who were
exempting their children from the uniform policy and those parents who
were simply ignoring it (Tillman 1). Hence, the district made the decision
to remove the opt out in an effort to force compliance. A provision to
permit parents to exempt their children from mandatory uniform policies
is one of the most crucial elements in insuring a successful program. The
lack of this provision virtually guarantees legal challenge and community
division.

In addition to removing the opt out provision, the Polk County School
District instituted progressive discipline for noncompliance culminating
with out-of-school suspension (School 35). As a result of this perceived
loss of freedom, a law-suit was filed on behalf of 544 plaintiffs in the
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (in Tampa) (Norgard
1-12). This lawsuit cites eleven constitutional causes of action. It claims
these violations with respect to both the Florida State and the United
States Constitutions (8-11). One of the arguments made by the plaintiffs
is that according to Article IX, Section 1 of the Florida State Constitution,
"Adequate provision shall be made by law for a . . . high quality system
of free public schools" (Florida 66). It is the position of the plaintiffs
that requiring the purchase of specific items in order to be educated causes
the education to cease to be free (Norgard 11).

The Polk County policy is also vulnerable to legal challenge because
it is not content neutral (having no written message conveyed) because
school T-shirts, bearing school messages are part of the uniform (School
11). Since students are prohibited from wearing shirts bearing religious
or political statements but in a sense are required to wear a district
approved statement successful legal challenge is possible (United 2-3).
One incident in Polk County involved a child who wore a shirt bearing an
image of the American Flag with text reading "God Bless America One More
Time." The child was made to change into a "loaner" uniform shirt ("Uniform"
2). Since students are denied access to the classroom for noncompliance,
the parents feel that their childrenís education is being held hostage.
A North Carolina school district recently reached an out-of-court settlement
granting a student an exemption from that districtís uniform policy for
religious reasons. Previously, the district had denied all requests for
exemptions, even those based on religious objections. The decision was
made to grant the exemption on the eve of the scheduled court date. The
district will also amend its policy to allow religious exemptions ("Student"
1). Thus, the best way to protect a policy from potentially successful
legal challenge is to follow the advice and the lead of those with successful
policies and permit parents an opt out provision (United 3).

When policies are set in place with no opt out, overzealous enforcement
often takes place causing a myriad of problems. In Polk County, the district
office ordered that their mandatory uniform policy was to be vigorously
enforced. In an effort to ensure parental cooperation with the policy,
the Superintendent of Schools threatened to seek criminal charges against
parents who did not send their children in compliant clothing. Glenn Reynolds,
Polk County Superintendent of Schools, said of parents who do not follow
the code, "we feel itís contributing to the delinquency of a child" (Cimino
"Polk" 1). What results from this aggressive enforcement is all too often
a source of confusion for parents and school staff. Cyndee Smith, a Polk
County parent who had been extremely pleased when the School Board voted
in the uniform policy, changed her mind following a conflict over her sonís
shirt color. Workers at his school deemed the shirt to be forest green
when the policy demanded hunter green. He was forbidden by school officials
to wear the shirt again (Cimino "Uniform" 1). Samantha Bonillaís son, a
second grader, encountered a similar problem. He wore a pair of pants left
over from the previous school year and was deemed to be noncompliant because
the pants were too faded (1). In classrooms all over Polk County, daily
uniform inspections are conducted on the more than fifty thousand students
affected by this policy (2).

Enforcement of the Polk County uniform policy varies from school to
school which causes a great deal of confusion for parents trying to comply.
Some schools will not allow a stripe or trim on shirt collars or pants
legs while others permit them (3). In one such case, a student used a marker,
with a teacherís help, to color in a stripe on his pants leg so that he
could return to class. "He didnít want to miss school," the teacher said
(quoted in Ferrante 3). Yet, at a different school, a principal may base
a decision on the size of a stripe and if the "spirit" of the policy is
honored. If so, a stripe may be permissible. The lack of consistent enforcement
is a serious drawback with this sort of policy.

Often shades of an official color cause disagreements between parents
and school staff. A school principal said, regarding shades of color, "If
I had to pick the biggest problem, it would be the color blue. The (school
sanctioned) navy is very dark blue . . . but we see royal blue, sky blue
and jeans that are faded" (1). Even as recently as February 2000, over
half way through the school year, the suspensions continue due to conflicts
over compliant clothing. A middle school student at Boone Middle School
in Haines City was recently suspended over the color of his sweater. School
administrators claimed that the sweater was black and his mother insisted
that it was navy blue, an approved color. His mother contacted the manufacturer
to verify that it was blue. She was told that the company did not make
that particular style in black, so it was definitely blue. Despite the
evidence, her son, an honor student with an excellent record, was suspended
during the week of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests (F-CATS)
(Sager 1). If a parent interprets a color or style of clothing differently
than school administrators, the parent consistently loses and must purchase
more clothing that is deemed acceptable by the staff ("Uniform" 1).

Another major problem with policies which are too vigorously enforced
is the humiliation and fear suffered by the children who are never quite
sure if they will be singled out as noncompliant (Cimino "Uniform" 2).
In some cases, enforcement borders on the criminal. One of the most egregious
acts of enforcement occurred on August 12, 1999. A sixth-grade girl, an
honor student, wore a school T-shirt and a pair of navy "Capri" pants which
her parents had specifically purchased in accordance with the written uniform
policy provided by the school. The parent reported, "When I saw my daughter,
I knew instantly that something was wrong." The mother had been called
to the school and informed that her daughterís "Capri" pants did not meet
the uniform requirements. The reason the assistant principal gave was that
the pants contained 4% spandex. According to the uniform policy, spandex
clothing is forbidden. When the mother later asked her daughter how the
school official had determined the fabric content of her pants, her daughter
informed her that the overzealous administrator had reached inside of the
childís pants to read the tag. Despite calls to district offices and law
enforcement, no punitive action was taken against the administrator (McCall
1). In another case, a nine-year-old boy was forced to change out of his
shirt into a loaner in a closet. He was denied his request to call his
mother. When his mother asked the school to show her the closet where her
son changed, the school refused her request stating that if she was shown
the closet, she might go to the media (Anna 1). One nine-year-old boyís
mother sent a note with him to school asking to be called if his clothing
should be ruled noncompliant so that she could bring him a change of clothing.
The school staff refused to call her and told the child to either change
his shirt into a loaner, or be sent to the in school suspension room. He
complied with the demand to change, and was up vomiting all night due to
nervous upset ("Uniform" 3). In one parental account, a five-year-old girl
wore a pair of over-alls depicting the Disney character Winnie the Pooh.
According to her father, she was called to the Principalís office and told
"if she didnít start dressing right she would be in trouble" (3). Throughout
Polk County accounts like this are common. Unfortunately, in an effort
to appear firm and forced to operate under strict directives from the district
office, staff is placed in the position of being the fashion police. In
Polk County, where previously parents and teachers worked together, there
is now a large amount of division in the name of uniformity.

What would you do if your elementary aged child came home from school
crying, telling you that he/she had been pulled out of line on his/her
way to class, stood against a wall, and made to wait while all the other
children went to class? Your child then tells you that the clothes you
purchased for school, following the schoolís Code of Conduct guidelines,
were deemed unacceptable by the principal and he/she was forced, under
threat of punishment, to change into loaned, approved clothing. You are
told, through sobs, of your childís humiliation and fear at being "in trouble."
How do you feel knowing that you are responsible for your childís discomfiture?
After all, you purchased the clothes in good faith and sent your child
to school confident that he/she was appropriately garbed. Imagine that
you call the principal to inquire about the confusion and your childís
state of emotional upset. You are told that you will have to purchase more
clothing that is deemed acceptable by the principal or your child will
be punished and denied an education. You were trying to follow the rules.
Yet you, the parent, are told that your best judgement is wrong and that
you have no recourse. There is no flexibility. Situations such as this
are encountered on a daily basis by parents whose children are subject
to a public school, mandatory uniform policy. Why does this occur? All
empirical research in existence shows, beyond question that uniforms are
ineffective as the magic bullet proponents claim them to be. In a culture
where all too often our children do not have textbooks, education dollars
are being squandered in courtrooms defending uniform policies destined
to be deemed illegal. There is no reasonable justification for denying
a child, who is ready and eager to learn, his/her education because of
the color or shade of a shirt. If a student is prepared to learn, that
learning cannot be conditioned on how he/she is dressed. Uniforms are a
band-aid solution to a very deeply flawed education system. We, as adults,
spout platitudes to our children, such as "It is who you are on the inside
that counts," and then we tell them "because you are wearing the wrong
color you are not worthy of an education." In a culture where diversity
is a point of pride, can we justify this sort of intolerance? History will
likely show uniforms to be an educational fad utilized by school districts
seeking a visible, quick fix to a long-term problem. In the meantime, our
students will continue to pay the price for the whims of those who decide
policy. These are serious times demanding serious solutions for our children,
not appearance changing, divisive schemes based in conjecture and theory
that can divide communities and destroy freedoms. In light of the lack
of positive empirical research results, costly potential legal challenges,
and enforcement abuses, perhaps mandatory school uniforms in our public
schools are not a viable tool with which to help fix our limping educational
system. Our children deserve educators and administrators who are guided
by facts and sound educational methods. We cannot afford to allow our schools
to be used as laboratories and our children to be used as guinea pigs for
new questionable fads founded in vanity and based on supposition.

Works Cited

Anna. "Uniforms." E-mail to the authorís organization. 10 Aug. 1999.

Brunsma, David L., and Kerry A. Rockquemore. "The Effect of Student
Uniforms on

Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and
Management Analysis. School Uniforms and Potential Educational Enhancements:
A Preliminary Analysis. August 1998.

Norgard, Robert A. "Hughes et al. v Polk County School Board, a Political
Subdivision of the State of Florida, and Glenn Reynolds, in His Official
Capacity as Superintendent of the Polk County Schools, Defendants." Lawsuit
filed 13 Sept. 1999. Polk County School Uniform Page. The Parental
Action Committee of Polk County, Florida. 5 Apr. 2000 <http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformLawsuit.html>.